Perhaps you could explain the process to us. I realize that since the Lisbon treaty, Parliament has been given a much more enhanced role in the ability to pass certain legislation and treaties. We're meeting with the European Parliament's international trade committee. Is this the committee the treaty would be going through first, before going to Parliament, and they'd have to approve it as well and amend it, or just consent to it or not consent to it before it goes to Parliament?

The international trade committee is the committee the European negotiators are providing updates to on a regular basis. So they'll be the ones most familiar with what's in the eventual agreement and with what's happening in the negotiations. They would take a first look at it and offer their views. After that, when it comes to ratification time for the agreement, the European Parliament as a whole will decide on whether they agree with ratification.

Given the fact that the seal hunt is a big issue in Europe, and the European Parliament has taken a very active role against the position of Canada, is that going to be an impediment or an issue discussed at upcoming visits? Is that going to be a possible future impediment to ratification, or a condition perhaps to ratify the Canada-EU trade agreement?

No. This issue first came up around the same time as the launching of the negotiations in May of 2009. Both sides reached an explicit agreement that we would not allow that issue to distract from the negotiations. So we have not discussed it. We have not tried to do anything on that issue. It is following a separate track through the WTO process that we have initiated on the seal trade.

We don't anticipate it to be a problem or an issue in the negotiations. You may hear about it from the European parliamentarians, because it is an issue, as you've said, that's attracted a fair amount of attention. We have provided separate briefing notes on that for your use.

I'd like to thank our guests for attending. I'm not sure whether I should be wearing my sealskin coat and tie to this event. I'm inclined to do that, unless you think it's totally provoking.

Mr. Verheul, you indicated in your presentation that in the 22 areas of negotiations, four are done or parked and four more will be done in January. By my math, that leaves 14 more to be done, and you have scheduled only one more meeting after that, in Ottawa in April. What's your confidence that that will be completed by then?

Well, we're not aiming specifically to complete it all by April, although hopefully we will be well advanced towards that. There will probably be a need for further negotiations after April, but they may not necessarily take the form of a full negotiating round. There will be a smaller set of issues to deal with, so there will be a need for a smaller group of negotiators to get together.

Even with the other chapters among the 22, the differences there are now fairly straightforward ones. We know they have a position; we have a different position, and it's a matter of trying to find some common ground or accepting one of the other positions. Those other chapters are not far from being finished; it's just a matter of needing some decisions on some more difficult issues.

It won't surprise you that there may be different perspectives from different parties around this table on the issues of this trade agreement. To what extent would a divided house, if I can call us that, going to Europe affect the deliberations that you're having?

I ask that question specifically because when this committee made a point of going to Washington before, we agreed that there were four primary areas that we would agree on. We agreed in substance on the direction that we wanted to take those. I would suggest to you that the dialogues that took place were positive and helpful and laid the groundwork for further dialogue.

So I ask the question: if we come with our different perspectives on this, which I think is a healthy process generally, what impact might that have on your negotiations? If we come with different views as members of Parliament, what would be the impact?